I'm going to be watching the "Diggers" play the Wampas Cats tonight. I'm rooting for the Diggers as I have a couple of nephews who play for them. Last year the Diggers defeated the Cats soundly. I'm hoping for similar results this evening.
-DW
Yes, you read the title right. Now pick yourselves up off the floor and let's discuss why this question needs an answer.
In reality this post is intended to lead you to another place where that question is being discussed. Just click on the link here provided and you'll be taken to the VFR entry of this morning: What Christianity requires in order not to be destructive of Society. Also, over at VA's is posted this title on the same subject: Which Christianity? continued.
As far as Auster's entry goes, I think Conservative Swede may actually have one good point. One of the things that VA points out in her post is that today's Christians tend to neglect the Old Testament in preference for the New Testament, the gospels and particularly Christ's words...
A Jew that's a Christian would most likely (today) be more familiar with the Old Testament than his Christian counterpart who is only familiar with the New Testament. He would be more prepared then to make sense out of the New Testament as it relates to the whole Bible.
How Christians have come to believe that the Old Testament, as part of the whole Bible, is not relevant to Christianity is beyond me. It would be like taking one of Paul's epistles and trying to understand it outside the context of the whole New Testament. I know Christians who actually do that. The rest of the Scriptures mean nothing to them if they can't make a direct connection between them and their preferred book(s) and passages. When the Bible explicitly states that "all scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, and etc..." But of course, if the book that contains that passage isn't one of their chosen books, then they've probably never run into it I guess.
Anyway, I highly recommend you go read Auster's post. And particularly the excellent comments that follow. But don't try to understand the comments outside the context of the post entry. That's my advice.
-DW
(Note: This is a re-write of an entry I put up yesterday morning. The other entry was pulled when I realized that I had made some wrong assumptions about Mr. Auster's position on the Iraq war. To that individual who made me aware of this, I thank you. And to those of you who might have read the other entry before it was pulled, I offer my sincerest apologies, as well as to Mr. Auster. -TM)
I have generally been a supporter of the Iraq war from the beginning. My reasoning for supporting that war may be summed up as follows:
After 9/11 the United States was left in a state of vulnerability while the muslim world had gotten a shot of adrenaline by the witness of those events. Whether Saddam had WMDs was never the issue with me. The issue was whether he would use them against us if he had them, and/or, if he could acquire them. And whether he was willing to put aside differences with other rogue regimes and combine forces with them to attack us, his and their common enemy while we were in a perceived state of vulnerability.
I think the answer to those questions is fairly obvious, and that's the reason I supported the invasion and overthrow of the Saddam regime...
That said, this idea of freeing the Iraqis/installing democracy has always been a thorn in my side, and though others would disagree with me, my belief has always been that the administration and the republicans were pressured into announcing these goals as of primary importance simply to garner support for the war. Yes; I believe President Bush is a true believer in the idea of democratizing the muslim world, and Iraq is his grand experiment. But my point is that I don't believe he and the republicans would have so readily announced that as a priority and a primary reason for invading Iraq had the democrats and the ultra-liberals not manipulated them into it by their anti-war rhetoric.
Now, maybe I'm wrong about that, and maybe I'm just recalling the history of the debate differently than it actually occured. That's fine, I don't always think I'm right. But the point is those goals should have never been a priority for us. And whether the administration was manipulated into announcing them as priorities or not, it should never have been so because it puts us in a position where either we're to stay in Iraq indefinately, or we are to remove ourselves having apparently failed in our objectives thus weakening us in the eyes of the muslim world and providing them with yet another shot of adrenaline.
With all of that said I have of late been contemplating whether we, the United States, have an alternative available to us that would satisfy our ends which to me boil down to self-preservation, not Iraqi democratization. I have always had a strong bias against any proposed "exit strategy" for Iraq based on the idea that they are generally liberal strategies which seem to pay no mind to the problems associated with simply retreating and effectively declaring defeat for ourselves and victory for our enemies. But I've recently been turned on to an "exit strategy" that acknowledges these problems and provides a means of dealing with them.
Now, I'm a realist in the sense that I understand that America and Americans are not prepared to embrace certain aspects of what this strategy entails. Indeed, were we so prepared, we would never have gotten into this situation to begin with. So it takes a radical shift in thinking. But as the author of this strategy might say in reply to someone like myself who might question whether Americans are prepared to accept and embrace such a strategy, which to some would be counted as wacky and radical: "How can we get there unless we talk about it and propose it and show this to people as a real alternative to our current hopeless approach?" It's a good point, because if this strategy has any merit to it at all, then we should at least accept it as a viable option. If it has a great deal of merit, then it should be adopted as our policy. And the only way to answer those questions is to first get it out there for people to see.
So, I will quote the author, Mr. Auster, from his entry posted at VFR yesterday wherein he has provided the link to the separationist strategy.
Auster writes:
"Either way, we have to leave Iraq. What must be rejected is leaving Iraq in the Democratic Party's way, in a way that looks like a defeat, which would encourage our jihadist enemies everywhere. Here, then, is what I propose. We should leave Iraq, while announcing that our former policy of Muslim democratization was a mistake and that our new policy is not to spread democracy to the Muslim world, but to stop and reverse the spread of Muslims to our world. Instead of acting like some pathetically distracted, naive do-gooder, like the James Stewart character in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, we will look like a tough country shedding our liberal illusions about the Muslims and determined to defend our own safety. Instead of being a defeat, such a withdrawal will be part of a radical strategic shift in which we leave our foolish past behind and immeasurably strengthen our own position." ("What we need to do in Iraq," VFR, July 13, 2007).
Whether this stategy has any merit to it is left to you to decide. But I've done my part to get it out there, and I'd like to hear what you have to say on the matter.
-DW
Has anyone ever asked you to give a list of five or ten people you'd most like to meet, or to have a private discussion with? Have you ever thought about what your answer would be if asked that question?...
I know for myself, and if it were possible, I'd like to meet such people as George Washington and John Quincy Adams, to name a couple of historical figures. But I'd also like to meet and talk to certain contemporaries of mine. At least a couple of spots on my list would be reserved to kindred souls within the ranks of traditional conservatism. You know, down-to-earth types whose work commands your respect.
Well, today I had the opportunity to have a nice conversation with one of these kindred souls via email, and the conversation was very pleasant, very enlightening, very uplifting. And we discussed one of my favorite topics to some extent which is the fourteenth amendment and the relationship between its establishment and where we are today.
I won't go into anything else here except to say that I was turned on to some very helpful materials, including a book title that I've heard before but which sub-title seemed to elude me. I'm told that if I'm into the fourteenth amendment, then I'm in for a real treat in reading this book. And I am into the fourteenth amendment, big time, as my brothers over at the AFB can fully attest. So I can barely wait to get my hands on a copy.
But I would simply say to that individual of whom I speak, it was an honor discussing this topic with you, and I appreciate your cordiality very much. Thanks for all your help, and again, thanks for what you do. And keep up the great work!
-TM
OK, I have to post Auster's appeal to liberals because it is so good. I wrestled with the idea of posting this quote in the context of a longer post, but ultimately I decided against it as I seemed to be, at every turn, only watering down or diluting his message. It stands on its own merits. I needn't add anything.
Auster writes:
"Listen, liberals! If you want our society to maintain its liberalism, albeit in a modified, no longer dominant form, then you need to support the renewal of our historic nationhood, culture and religion that traditionalists such as myself advocate. Only such a renewed culture can fortify and defend the West against the Islamic religion which would destroy all liberalism."
I will only say this (and please read the entire entry posted at VFR), I wonder whether Auster's suggestion is acceptable to liberals even as merely a consideration?I'm not so sure. Liberals seem to be so committed to liberalism that the slightest hint of a less dominating influence is anathema to them, and absolutely non-negotiable. In other words, liberals had rather sacrifice our entire culture, nationhood and religion, than to yield one foot of ground they have already conquered, wouldn't they?
-DW
(Note: See my comments posted at VFR on this topic where I mention another aspect of that particular torture conversation which came to mind after I put up this entry. Thanks to Mr. Auster for posting them.)
With all the conversation going on over at VFR concerning a certain form of gnosticism emanating from a certain group espousing a pacifist sort of Christianity that would, among other things, allegedly prefer the allowance of a hijacked airliner, with innocent passengers on board, to crash into the Sears Tower, as an example, rather than downing the fateful aircraft thereby saving untold thousands, I've been reminded time and again of a similar conversation I was involved in some time back.
In my conversation the question about the use of torture to extract information from 'enemy combatants' was the central issue. My contention was that I supported the use of torture when it was necessary to save American lives. My opponent's position was that torture is immoral, and that he could never support the use of it under any circumstances. So I put this question to him:
Suppose your family is captured by terrorists. Suppose that you get information from a reliable source that someone in your neighborhood friendly to the captors has knowledge of your family's whereabouts. Would you, if necessary, use torture to extract information about your family's whereabouts in an attempt to save their lives. His answer, which may or may not surprise some of you, was: “No!, I would never use torture under any circumstances.” And that's putting it mildly.
Of course, I did not hesitate to tell this individual what a piece of scum I thought he was to prefer to protect his own sensibilities over the saving of the very lives of his family members. But when push came to shove, I wondered, is this truly the way he would react, in spite of all his self-righteous invectives?
I often wonder about that to this very day. I suppose some folks have lost all sense of a moral obligation to protect innocent lives even at the mere hazard of crushing their own sensibilities. But I wonder if part of my opponent's unwavoring adherence to this goofy notion of his was not really based in the knowledge that if he answered “yes; I would use torture in that case,” that his whole case against using torture, which he had very carefully laid out, would at once break down?
-DW
This is going to come as a huge shock to you all, but I've actually been wrong before. Moreover, I've actually assented to a wrong idea knowing full well that I was assenting to an idea that was purely untenable.
One of the most egregious examples of this came a couple of years ago when I wrongly, and knowingly, assented to the idea, expressed by someone I'll not name here, that "people are essentially good." I knew there was a huge problem with this idea, and I recognized it right away. Yet, to my great regret now, I joined in to this chorus feigning a true belief in the concept.
I'd like to clear the record on this, as well as to finally put my conscience at ease in this matter. I do not believe that people are essentially good, but rather that they are essentially bad. People need a reason to be good, as I've said so many times since, thus contradicting myself. I believe that the best reason to be good is contained in the Bible. And the Bible explicitly states that man is not good, no not one.
I agree with Auster on this question of being good. I can't truly be good outside the good influence of my religion. And to that person (you know who you are) to which I falsely and knowingly mis-stated my actual position (for which I have no good explanation), I offer my most sincere apologies, and beg forgiveness.
-DW
Tuesday, August 28th, North Americans will be treated to yet another Lunar Eclipse. This total eclipse of the moon will be the second this year. And yet another is due to occur February 21st of '08. All together, North America will have been treated to three separate lunar eclipses in less than a year. For information about the event as it will unfold in your time zone, see this article at Sky and Telescope.
-DW
(Note: Do not neglect to read John Savage's first comments to this post. John's comments further reveal that the 4W position betrays their actual desire to formulate a new American creed more conducive to their own brand of patriotism...)
John Savage has suggested that I post the following comments I made earlier this morning to his fine entry “Toward an Understanding of Patriotism According to WWWW,” here at Webster's.
I should explain that John got my attention on this when he cited the header description line at the AFB as an example of the kind of ideological patriotism that 4W had taken their stand against.
As I explain in the comments below, my view is that if creedal patriotism can be shown to be an illegitimate form of patriotism, then it should be rejected. And if it truly is an illegitimate form of patriotism worthy of rejection, then its antagonists should be able to lay down reasonable arguments for its illegitimacy while fully adhering to the dictates of their own reasons...
John poses this interesting question in reply to an earlier comment of mine:“Back to what Terry said. I'm wondering if it implies that creedal patriotism is not uniquely American, but there's always some unifying creed that binds a nation. That creed may be relatively unstated, but it commands love for certain symbols, heroes, etc. The fact that we have a shared ancestry needs to have some meaning attached to it, I suppose. Otherwise kinship had better be very close if we're going to care about it, and act upon it. Is that right, Terry?”
Here is my answer:“Well, I tend to think that way, yes. Indeed, it seems to me that family unity and so forth is part of the creed, not separate from it. We can analyze them separately, but I don't see how they can be completely separated as distinctive kinds of patriotism and loyalty capable (or not) of themselves to satisfy the elements comprising 'legitimate' patriotism.
I don't deny the importance of natural affection, familiar places and smells and all of that. As a matter of fact I affirm it, but it only goes so far. Cella and Martin seem to leave no room for a blending of these, claiming one to be an illegitimate form of patriotism and loyalties, supposedly rejecting it in favor of the other.
If it's truly illegitimate then it oughta be rejected. But if it's truly illegitimate as they claim, then why do they adhere to it? I doubt, for instance, that Cella and Martin would assert that their own blood ties with their extended families are stronger inducements to loyalty than their ideological kinship to one-another. Even if they are blood relatives, they likely don't identify as well, nor do they have as strong a bond to other blood kin whose ideological beliefs are different than their own. The proof seems to me in the pudding.
It seems to me that blood ties and kinship based on purely natural kinds of affection would tend to break down in proportion to the distance removed from the immediate family. And that's just speculation on my part because I don't think we have any real examples to look to where this kind of purely natural loyalty is adhered to in strictness.
Ideological loyalty has its limitations too. It would break down the further removed one was from the core ideas and principles. But you cannot simply reject it based on its inherent limitations anymore than you can reject the other based on the same thing.
Again they concentrate their efforts on identifying the weaknesses inherent to ideological loyalties, neglecting to deal with the limitations and weaknesses of the more primitive kinds of loyalty.
In short, it seems to me that Cella and Martin argue in favor of an ideological loyalty. Their creed seems to be no-creed. But it's still a creed, isn't it?”
John's comment that follows to the effect of this not being my final word on the subject is fair enough. It certainly wasn't intended as the final word from this end, but more of a beginning. And I certainly intend to say more. As for now this should suffice to give you a window into what I believe some of the problems are with the 4W position on ideological patriotism. In the absence of a more compelling argument for a rejection of creedal patriotism, I take my stand for it.
-DW
Congressman Tancredo will be on the O'Reilly Factor tonight with guest host Michelle Malkin wherein they will be discussing sanctuary cities, immigration, and Tancredo's campaign, according to the Tancredo '08 website. I'm not a 'Friend of the Factor' as I expressed in these comments. But I think I'll watch tonight.
This is obviously going to be a more "user-friendly" environment than was the set of Fox's other popular primetime show, Hannity and Colmes, just a couple nights ago for Mr. Tancredo. One has to wonder whether there was a significant amount of outrage expressed over the spectacle that we saw the other night, and whether this led Fox News to extend to Tancredo another invite under better conditions. I would suspect, given that this news was only reported within the last hour, that this has something to do with it.
But irregardless, tonight's O'Reilly Factor should be worth watching, and the viewers should be able to hear Tancredo out on these very important issues.
-DW
Read More(Note: Read an eye-witness account of Tancredo's press conference in Newark posted at VFR.)
Statement of the Honorable Tom Tancredo Newark, NJ August 20, 2007
The fact that Newark, New Jersey is a “sanctuary city” for illegal aliens is now well known. In addition, it has been widely reported that two of the alleged perpetrators of this heinous act, which occurred two weeks ago Saturday resulting in the deaths of three young students and the wounding of a fourth, are in this country illegally. Both have prior arrests on charges ranging from sexual assault on a child to robbery and illegal possession of weapons...
If the alleged assailants are found guilty of these brutal crimes, Newark and its political leadership share a degree of culpability. They have established a sanctuary city policy in violation of federal law, harbored illegal aliens, and their actions have directly contributed to the deaths of three promising young American kids.
I am encouraging the families of the victims to pursue the option of a lawsuit in light of this culpability. Not only are sanctuary cities a moral outrage that restricts the flow of information to and from ICE, they are illegal-violating the plain language of 8 USC 1373.
Mayor Cory Booker and Governor Jon Corzine have apologized to the people of Newark for not having done enough. They are right, they have not. But their apologies are meaningless if they aren’t willing to do their jobs now.
Sanctuary cities are safe havens for all illegal aliens including gang members, drug dealers, rapists, and murderers, further exposing the law-abiding citizens of such cities to greater crime. According to the Center for immigration Studies, a confidential California Department for Justice study found that fifteen years after Los Angeles declared itself a sanctuary city, 60% of LA’s most violent gangs, with membership in the tens of thousands, were illegal aliens. Of all outstanding murder warrants as of 2004 in Los Angeles, 95% are for illegal aliens.
Because the leaders of this city and this state can not find the courage to put the safety of those they were sworn to protect above all else, we now read that a movement was launched last week aimed at increasing the number of sanctuary cities in New Jersey. It is time someone made it clear that sanctuary cities are a travesty of justice and innocent people are paying the price of leaders gone amuck.
As a nation we can no longer permit our cities and communities to thumb their noses at the laws of our land; and we can no longer allow illegal aliens to be above the law. The consequences of this lawlessness are simply too high.
It is time for Congress to pass a law that bans the flow of federal moneys to all sanctuary cities. For years I have offered such amendments to various appropriations bills. This year I was successful in doing so on the Homeland Security Appropriations bill. There will be attempts in the Senate to remove my amendment, and I appeal to all Americans to demand their Senators resist such attempts.
In addition I personally believe there is a possibility that the political leadership of this and other sanctuary cities may be subject to criminal charges for aiding and abetting illegal aliens. Although I have no hope that the Bush administration’s Justice Department would ever pursue an inquiry, I assure you, mine would.
Thirdly, citizens of sanctuary cities need to demand their leaders cease and desist with such policies and in their place implement procedures that would assure that local law enforcement teams work with all other such agencies to assure the rule of law is re-established throughout the land. If their leaders refuse, they must be held accountable not only in the courts but also on Election Day.
It’s time Americans take back their country.
Thank you very much. I will gladly take questions." (emphasis mine)
You can read some pretty fair assessments of what happened here. If any of you watched this I'd like to read what you have to say about how the 'debate' went. Also, I agree with LA's answer to Ben W.'s question. Tancredo's people need to set some guidelines before they agree to go on with someone who has Geraldo's reputation for shouting down his opponents and taking over the show. I'm not convinced that there's any 'strategy' behind Geraldo's tactics, as Ben W. suggests, I think Geraldo really believes that...stuff, and he's genuinely passionate about it. I think Geraldo is a “true believer,” how about you?
-DW
I picked this up over at Tom Tancredo's blog. That's right, Congressman Tancredo will be on Fox News's Hannity and Colmes tonight, August 22, debating none other than America's favorite hispanic, and advocate for mass migration and national suicide, Geraldo Rivera.
The showdown is scheduled to begin at 9:00 pm Eastern. Be there, and tell all your friends!
-DW
I think one of the best definitions I ever read of the word is contained in Webster's original 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language. As most of you know Mr. Webster was a contemporary of the founding generation, he was an influential leader of his day, particularly in the area of education where his influence is still felt to this very day. In fact, some of you are probably unaware of this, but there's been a concerted effort going on in this nation for some time now to restore, through the educational process, Mr. Webster's uniquely “American” methods of education, particularly at the primary levels. From my view this is vital to the restoration of this republic, and for saving it from the dark abyss which liberalism in all its varied forms is leading it to.
I should like to open a discussion on what the term politics means to each of us individually, and I'd appreciate your participation. I will begin the discussion by saying that to me, despite all the negative modern Americans associate with the term, politics is essentially good. Politics, to me, seeks to improve us and our condition, individually and collectively. It has no power of itself to do good or evil, to secure or to crush liberty. Politics is merely a vehicle which human beings use to accomplish either/or. I don't buy into the libertarian theory, btw, that there's no such thing as 'collective liberty.' I rather tend to think that liberty begins with the individual, but it certainly does not end with him/her. As Mr. Webster might have stated it were the question put to him, “those who claim there is no collective liberty involve themselves in a palpable error, for though they understand the particular aspect of liberty, they fail to understand the general aspect of which the particular is always a part.” And though the libertarian would insist that the 'greater good,' or the 'common good,' should never be sought at the expense of the individual good, using such arguments that indict this pursuit as having been responsible for a net loss of liberty, not a net gain, I find that to be a rather poor argument given that in fact what the libertarian is really vying for is indeed his version of the 'greater good.' It's just that the libertarian believes that the collective, or the 'greater good' is indeed, and almost always the individual good. Or, they are one and the same thing. While this may well be true, it does not absolve the libertarian of his error. Which is to say that he seeks the greater good as much as the next guy in spite of all his railings against the idea of seeking the greater good.
So, essentially, I think politics seeks the greater good for the people it applies most particularly to in a universal sort of way. Again, I think politics (in pureness) is essentially good and seeks the best good of the whole. I think politics has a reciprocal aspect to itself, and that indeed if it can be said to be responsible for a net loss of liberty, not a net gain, as the libertarian would seem to have it, then it is an indefensible concept, this idea of politics, and irreconcilable with the idea of liberty.
What say you?
-DW
Oklahoma as THE Example:
Some time back (August 8, to be exact) I put this blog post up wherein I derided my State representative for his failure to mention (in a form letter sent to his constituents, including myself) the new immigration law in the State of Oklahoma due to go into effect November 1 of this year. He didn't mention it in either his list of 'accomplishments' during last session, nor in his list of 'vital' issues which he promised he would 'fight' for in the upcoming session. I find this to be a strange omission on his part, and I say as much in a message I sent to his office just today.
But also in the post I mentioned that one concern I have as a legal citizen and a native of this State, concerned for the preservation of our laws, our heritage, our culture and our institutions, and for our unalienable right to self-preservation in legally closing the door to mass migration here from Mexico and States bordering Oklahoma, is that our new law will be challenged in the State and Federal courts, with the real potential (considering the rampant liberalism in this nation) that our laws and our very right to defend ourselves against this invasion, will be suspended and even perhaps deemed 'unconstitutional' by the powers that be.
Well, that battle I predicted would take place then is already taking shape as we speak. The battle lines are already drawn, and we are about to go to war...
First of all, let me explain that I'm in no way trying to say that it is due to any special insight I have that I knew this was coming. Any conservative American who's worth his salt is well versed in the tactics of the left, at least in a general sense. Leftists love to challenge laws they disagree with in the courts because it is there that they find their most reliable and most powerful friends. Simply stated, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that when a State passes bills which stand in opposition to the basic tenets of the liberal doctrine then liberals are going to come out of the woodwork to challenge them, and they're going straight to the courts.
Truly, liberals have no compunction about usurping the legislative process, or of overthrowing a duly enacted law by a duly elected legislature because they believe themselves to hold and occupy the moral high ground, and therefore, to them, whether they find themselves in the majority or the minority, the legislative process is only good and legitimate when their desires are met; when the basic tenets of the liberal doctrine are complied with and codified. My friends, liberalism is literally eating us up from the inside out, with little noticeable resistance from the other side. But that's a subject for a different discussion.
My purpose here is to build upon what I've already written concerning Oklahoma's new immigration laws, again, due to take effect November 1. First, I won't quote from the actual legislation passed in the Oklahoma House and Senate, and signed by Governor Henry. What I will do is to excerpt highlights from a story recently published in the Tulsa World. What is HB 1804? The law will:
You can see by this list highlighting what the law deals with specifically that it treats only “illegal” immigrants and those who hire them, though 'legal' immigrants found to be 'knowingly transporting or harboring illegals' in this State are dealt with as well. But the concentration of the law is mainly on immigrants of the illegal variety.
In the Tulsa World story (actually published the day after I put up the aforementioned post, interestingly enough), “Immigration law could see court fight,” the charge is leveled in opposition to the new law that it's going to 'scare' people, and it's 'going to harm people.'
First of all, I don't see any harm in scaring people who have no legal right to be here, nor any desire to assimilate; nor is there anything wrong with putting the fear of God in some folks who show no respect for our laws, or their hosts. If you don't want to live in fear, go home! Besides, everyone knows, as Ben Franklin said: “fish and guests stink after three days.” Well, your 3 days are long since up in this State.
This kind of liberal reaction to a duly enacted law is all too predictable in this country, and even in this State which by comparison with some others might be considered 'hard core conservative.' But there's nothing hard core conservative about this State in reality, any more than there's anything hard core conservative about President Bush, unless you're viewing both from a radical liberal perspective. We've got our share of bleeding hearts here, and they display a genuine, deep hatred of anything resembling traditionalism, except the liberal traditionalism to which they've been thoroughly indoctrinated, of course. And this is one of the very reasons that conservative Okies like myself have had enough of this onslaught of liberal 'values' we've had thrust upon us in this State over the years. Enough is enough, and it's time to put our foot down, or draw the line, or whichever suits your tastes.
As I've stated countless times before, I don't even care to see migrant Americans come here because of what they tend to bring with them – some measure of liberalism over and above that which already has a firm foothold in this State. The question to me is this: Is my State and its traditions worth protecting from enemies foreign and domestic? And I answer it with an emphatic YES!
Here's an excerpt from the story in the Tulsa World which serves to illustrate the point:The state's polemic anti-immigration bill could be challenged in federal court as soon as Oct. 1, said the president of a national organization that's behind a local effort to stymie the law before it takes effect Nov. 1.
The Rev. Miguel Rivera, president of the National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, held a press conference and prayer Wednesday outside City Hall.
"We are going to use Oklahoma as an example," he said.
Rivera announced plans for an Oct. 1 rally against House Bill 1804 on the steps of the Oklahoma Capitol.
He said he anticipates that thousands of people will participate.
A lawsuit against the law could be filed before then.
The argument likely will be that HB 1804 unconstitutionally pre-empts federal immigration law.
The law's author, state Rep. Randy Terrill, R-Moore, said, "I'm 99.9 percent sure this bill will withstand any legal challenge...(emphasis mine)
First of all, it's not an 'anti-immigration' bill. Though a good argument could be made that it should be, it's not 'anti' anything but “illegal” immigration, by any stretch. Furthermore, I'm not 99.9% sure it will withstand legal challenges. While I appreciate the optimism of the author of the bill, I'm not that optimistic. As I said, there's a fairly sizeable liberal contingency in this state, and there's no doubt that liberals from across the fruited plain will come to the aid of this group in support of their efforts to compromise and overthrow Oklahoma's laws. But that's a point I'll address in a moment.
Note the anti-Oklahoma tone of Mr. Miguel Rivera as he assures us that we (they) are going to use Oklahoma as an example. An example of what, and in what way are you threatening to make an example out of us, Mr. Rivera? As an example of what happens to a state (or states) determined to defend its culture, its people, its very existence against a foreign invasion of a people and peoples who feign a love for freedom, yet have no idea of how to establish it or to defend it...and show no desire to learn? Exactly how do you propose to use this state as an example, sir, by recruiting as many illegals as you can to come here and take up residency prior to November first? How exactly do you and your minions intend to undermine our laws, and by what authority, moral or otherwise, do you intend to do so?
The whole purpose here is to intimidate other states in this union, cowering them into non-resistance. And if that objective is met, then the aliens, and alien ideas of government have won another significant battle in the culture war. Oklahomans have no choice but to fight this battle with all we have, not just for ourselves, but for all Americans who are citizens and residents of States that have not yet come to their milk on this question. Eventually they will because they'll be forced to. But until then this State, with its “toughest immigration legislation in the nation,” must fight and win this battle, not only for ourselves, but for all States in this federal union of ours. It's not up to the People of this state to demand and create your legislation for you, but we are obliged to defend your rights (preemptively) as well as our own on this question. Indeed, whether it's our intention to defend your rights in this way or not, that is exactly what we're going to do ultimately.
The State of Oklahoma is about to go to bat for the whole of the United States on this vital question. But we wonder, when the going gets tough, how many of our compatriots will be with us? The answer to that question may well determine what the outcome will ultimately be, not only for this state, but for the whole nation.
The question more simply stated is this: with whom is your allegiance - your fellow Americans, or the illegal invaders? Take your time.
-DW
You'll probably never read a book review here at Webster's, authored by myself at least. I was never very good at giving book reports in school, nor do I think I'd be much better at giving book reviews via this kind of medium. I'll recommend books from time to time, and in those recommendations I'll try to give a short overview of what the book's about and the reasons for which I recommend it. That will probably be the extent of book reviews coming from yours truly.
That said, I did want to inform you that I'm currently reading two books I picked up over the weekend, neither of which titles or authors I had any knowledge of prior to running into them - in one instance at a Christian bookstore my wife and I stopped by over the weekend, and in the other I happened upon at the University bookstore on the campus of OU over the weekend too. In fact, I ran into several titles at the University bookstore that intrigued me, but ultimately I chose the one listed here for immediate purchase.
Notwithstanding those facts I did read the introductions to both books prior to purchasing them, as well as to select and read some random passages throughout the chapters, as per my usual - I never judge a book by its cover, though a good looking cover will often capture my initial attention.
But anyway the titles of these books and their authors are: Infiltration, by Paul Sperry, and The Enemy at Home, by Dinesh D'Souza. So far the latter, with its emphasis on identifying why the cultural left bears much responsibility for the events of 9/11, has managed to capture my undivided attention, whereas the former, though it contains some very good information with regard to Islam's presence here in the United States, is less appealing to my particular tastes. I'm about 1/3 of the way through them both, and both books are about 300 pages, give or take.
I'll update you later as to how my reading of these titles is going, and whether I think they're worth the time to read. In the meantime, I wonder whether any of you have either heard of these titles or their authors, or whether you've read them before?
-DW
There's an interesting discussion going on over at VFR today concerning whether or not it is widely known among the American populace that indeed the United States dropped leaflets warning the Japanese inhabitants of the targeted cities concerning what was about to happen, and instructing them on what to do to avoid being eviscerated themselves.
Probably what intrigues me the most about the post and the comments to it is the lack of knowledge about these facts concerning America's handling of the war against Japan. As far back as I can remember I've always known about this very relevant fact, but I did not learn it in school or from a book, I learned these facts from my dad who imparted them to me at a fairly young age. And I just assumed, very wrongly it appears, that this was indeed common knowledge among the American citizenry. I guess it all goes back to what I've said numerous times before here and elsewhere: "never assume nothin'."
But I've learned this morning that LA has started an informal poll on the subject, so y'all go over and participate. I should like to see just how wide-spread this lack of knowledge of these facts is. And I'll be keeping track of the results.
In the previous post put up yesterday evening I asked you all to look for a post this morning having to do with what I discovered upon reading the entries put up at a few of my favorite blogs while we were away. The implication being, of course, that I was going to concentrate my efforts this morning on saying a few things about the aforementioned blogs and the entries which had been posted during my absence. Well, as these things seem to go for me fairly frequently these days, that has now all changed, though I intend to do another post on that subject later today...
It's no secret that I frequent VA's blog, nor that I hold her in pretty high esteem among bloggers. And it's been on numerous occasions like this one that a post at VA's has sparked some idea for a related post here at Webster's.
Most of you know by now that I have a pretty simple approach to the world and the problems facing it. Usually it all boils down, for me, to a poor religious foundation on an individual level. That leads to a poor foundation at the various group levels. Truly I believe, in direct contradiction to what seems to be the conventional wisdom these days, that the 'whole' of society is exactly equal to, not greater than (or lesser than for that matter), 'the sum of its parts.' Personally I believe this very idea, or concept, is at least indirectly responsible for many of the problems our society faces these days.
If the idea is accepted and acknowledged generally as a truth (and I think it may safely be said that it is), then I know we have a huge problem on our hands that results from that kind of thinking. There may be 'power in numbers,' but no more or less than those numbers add up to. And if you want to discover the character of the nation and this people as a whole, just look to the individuals making the nation up and let that be your answer, disheartening as it may be. At least that's an honest approach which leaves little room for individuals to wriggle themselves out of their ultimate responsibilities.
And that's really the subject I want to get to in this first full post following my recent absence. VA discusses this morning the problems involved with identifying personal issues of 'self-indulgence' as, or equating them with legitimate 'diseases.' She focuses her post on drug and alcohol addiction, and the tendency these days to treat them both as diseases, as opposed to treating them in the old fashioned, or the traditional way as problems associated to the lack of personal restraint and control.
Personally I believe strongly in the admonition of the Bible to 'raise up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not soon depart from it.' And truly, y'all, can any of us say with a straight face that a majority of American children (little people) these days are raised by their parents, or influenced by our society in that way?
America's Schoolmaster, Noah Webster, certainly keyed in on this approach essential to maintaining and perpetuating a largely 'self-governing' society. In his very definition of the term “education,” Webster defines it as “all that series of instruction and discipline intended to enlighten the understanding, correct the temper, form the manners and habits of youth, and to fit them for usefulness in their future stations. Note Webster's choice of terms here – discipline, correct, form, fit. And I gotta ask, folks, if our methods of 'education' are not “intended” to do all that, then why would we ever think we'd end up with a society comprised of self-governing people? How could we ever honestly believe that our constitution and the principles it was founded on could ever survive?
As I read VA's post the thought kept coming to mind, sentence after sentence, that this is far from what is intended within today's 'educational' establishment. But the primary educators of our children, irregardless of who, or what sphere of government is ultimately chosen to the task of educating them, are their parents and adult family members. But what exactly is happening with today's youth? Why is education, and the primary educational institutions in this country (the home, the church, and the schools) failing our kids? Why does each successive generation seem to exhibit less and less self-governing qualities, and more and more dependency on others, on government, on drugs, on alcohol, you name it?
Is it not that they're being raised this way? Is it not that the disease of liberalism has so infected all of our primary educational institutions that this is just the natural result of their poor raisings? I believe so, and I believe that one indicator of this is the growing tendency for parents to seek a medical cure for problems of the temper exhibited by their children, and for the schools to assist them in doing so.
All too often these days parents are all too willing to identify problems with their children which they seem to believe is related to some 'disorder' possessed of their children in a way unique to other children. I suspect I know at least part of the reason parents are inclined to accept these false notions about their kids. First, it gets the parents off the hook for the bad behavior of their kids, or so the parents believe. Second, the parents derive a lot of self-indulgent pleasure from the sympathies they receive from family members and the general public when they have a child with 'special needs.' Third, if they have a 'special' child with 'special' needs, there are all kinds of financial benefits to be derived therefrom, and so on. But is the problem correctly identified, and is it as widely spread as we're led to believe? I certainly believe that the problem is mis-diagnosed much of the time, if not most of the time.
One thing I've always said regarding my own children, albeit somewhat jokingly, is that “they all had A.D.D. until I beat it out of them.” What I mean by that, obviously, is that they all (every last one of them) showed all the signs of having an 'attention deficit' until it was cured through the methods of instruction and discipline intended to (1) enlighten, (2) correct, (3) form, (4) fit. And if this is not the method for producing self-governing individuals 'fit for usefulness in their future stations,' as self-governing, independent, and productive American adults, then I'm utterly deluded.
The point being, of course, that our tendency these days as parents and guardians to darken the understanding, encourage the practice of bad behavior through non-correction, to allow the manners and habits to be formed outside a guiding moral influence, and to raise children not fit for usefulness in their future stations is all too common, and all too noticeable out in the real world. And if you don't believe it, just make it a point the next time you go to a public place, to watch how much parents indulge their misbehaving children.
But of course these misbehaving children just can't help themselves, can they? They must have some disorder that causes them to behave so badly, whether there's been a term put to it yet or not, and for which there must be some prescription drug available to control it. And if not there will be, right? Pretty convenient excuse for those parents who themselves are very often self-indulgent, drug addicted types, wouldn't you agree?
-DW
We're back home now, and I've managed to make a few stops around the blogosphere this evening. Look for a full post Monday morning in that vein.
Other than that I'm happy to be back with y'all again. Looks like everything went off without a hitch despite my absence. I guess I'm not as important to blogging as I thought I was. lol
Nah, Just wanted to let y'all know we're back, and that I'll be posting something more significant tomorrow.
Y'all be good in the meantime.
-DW
VA has a nice post up this morning lamenting the fact that we now have such GOP 'top tier' presidential contenders as Giuliani climbing on the 'no amnesty for illegals' bandwagon. VA rightly discerns, in my opinion, the true motives of candidates like Giuliani, and perhaps even Mitt Romney as political expediency, not a genuine concern for the dire immigration situation in this country...
Perhaps it's true that some of these so-called 'leaders' of ours didn't formerly understand the extensiveness of the immigration situation here in the United States, and are now really coming to grips with the situation and the need to address it. I will give them all benefit enough to admit that this is indeed a possibility. But truly, y'all, is it wise of us, while being 'fair' to all the candidates in giving them the benefit of the doubt on this question, to allow that tendency of ours of being fair to everyone translate into considering their candidacies as legitimate? I don't think so, how about you?
While I'm glad to see such 'high profile' individuals like New York's former mayor at least expressing some level of sanity on the idea of giving amnesty to illegal aliens already in this country, I still view this 'conversion,' and others like it with a great deal of skepticism. Indeed, in Giuliani's case in particular, I think it to be politically motivated rather than a true honest-to-God conversion. And I think he lets the cat out of his own bag of tricks.
In her post, VA quotes Mayor Giuliani as having said this recently:If they ever wanted to become citizens, I would say they would have to pay a fine so it's not amnesty," Giuliani said. "Also they have to get at the back of the line, not get ahead of anybody else."
And as I said in a comment to her post directed at this specific quote, 'what kind of a school-boy, lunch-line position is that to take from someone who's supposedly a 'great American Patriot, Statesman, and Hero???'
Ladies and Gentlemen, I implore you to not be fooled by this kind of rhetoric coming from the likes of Mr. Giuliani. That's nothing more than saying “it's not fair for you to be at the front of the line since you're here illegitimately to begin with -convenient position to take, isn't it, given that almost everyone can agree with that- but since you're already here, we insist that you take your place at the back of the line; and oh, by the way, let's have some of that lunch money you got there.”
Like I implied in my comments to VA's post, that sort of a position (coming from a 'johnny-come-lately on this issue candidate like 'America's mayor) seems to me to indicate that Giuliani would sell his country off for little of nothing, and in the very process try to convince you and me that he's 'tough' on immigration for the sake of political expediency.
Well, I ain't buyin' it, Mr. Mayor! And I'll tell ya this, if I have anything to do with it whatsoever, you'll never be elected to the presidency of these United States!
Perhaps you and others truly are experiencing a change of heart on this issue, among others. Fine. But while you go through that process of unlearning that which has become rather habitual for you and they, you oughta be relegated by the voting public to low levels of government servanthood, if any at all. Indeed, I would say that if you had the character that a position like the Presidency requires to be entrusted to you safely, you would admit to yourself and to the general public that such a change of heart at such a time as this would rather tend to disqualify you from serving as President, or in any national political capacity for that matter.
So, my advice to you, Rudy, is to take some time off. Recuse thyself from the race based on the evident fact that you're not qualified, sir. Another way of saying it would be this, follow your own newly to be had inclination on 'immigration reform' and move thyself to the back of the line; you're at the front illegitimately.
In other words, begone child, there's enough confusion to go around without your adding more to it.
-DW
I was over at Tom Tancredo's site (which is finally updated following Saturday's Iowa Straw Poll) earlier and I ran across these comments posted at his blog - the title of the post is actually “14 Reasons to Deport Illegal Aliens,” but I figured they were better denominated “14 Reasons to Elect Tancredo,” given that much of this is likely to not be resolved short of doing just that:...
14 Reasons to Deport Illegal Aliens...
1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year.
http://tinyurl.com/zob77
2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.
http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.
http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare & social services by the American taxpayers. http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html
9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the United States . http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html
11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroine and marijuana, crossed into the U. S. from the Southern border. Homeland Security Report:
http://tinyurl.com/t9sht
12. The National Policy Institute, "estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period." http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deportation.pdf
13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin.
http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm
14. "The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States ". http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml
So using the LOWEST estimates, the annual cost OF ILLEGAL ALIENS is $338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR! So if deporting them costs between $206 and $230 BILLION DOLLARS, get rid of em', We'll be ahead after the 1st year!!!
Thanks to Luther. Please pass this on. Americans need to wake up!
VOTE TANCREDO FOR PRESIDENT! (end of post)
I need to let y'all know that there's been a death in the family, and that this will result in my absence in the coming days. There seems to be some bit of confusion about the funeral arrangements at this point which makes it impossible for me to say exactly what days I'll be out for sure, but it seems that there's agreement among the parties involved to delay the funeral for a few days. As of right now, it looks like I'll be gone probably Thursday thru' the weekend.
Thanks for your concern, your prayers, and for your well wishes.
-Terry
This is one of those questions that just eats at ya, y'know? Those who know me well know that I've been an outspoken critic of the American People for a long time now, placing the blame for our governmental situation on ourselves at least as much as on any of our so-called 'leaders,' and often more so. One of my oft repeated refrains, in fact, has been some form of this: “the next time you have a complaint about your elected officials and the way they're conducting themselves, in their 'personal' or their 'private' lives, just go to the nearest mirror in your home, look at yourself and repeat these words “I am (insert offending leader's name).”
Now, this is not a very popular position to take, even within 'conservative' circles, but as VA and others write, 'we should be able to have an adult conversation about this thing, and whether it has any truth to it.' Indeed we should, and ultimately we must, I should think...
I mention VA because she put up an entry a few days ago dealing with this very question over at her blog, Iowa and the government we deserve. And yes, implicit in the title is the idea contained in the body of the post indicting us Americans – We the People – for the government we have and complain so often about. We've had this conversation more than a few times over at the AFB, and elsewhere, and the conversation went southward fairly quickly in some instances where someone was offended by the notion that we have ourselves, and only ourselves, to blame for our condition, when ya boil it all down.
Personally I think the idea applies to Americans in a very unique way. Even at this point when things seem to be so very bad; when our government seems so very out of control, when the cancers of liberalism and political correctness seem to have almost thoroughly overtaken us in our political capacity as 'one nation; one people,' we still hold the purse strings; we still are the ultimate and the final authority in this government founded on laws and free elections.
In some other parts of the world, people are ruled by 'arbitrary' government, that is, they are ruled by illegitimate government, founded on illegitimate ideas of government. But not us. Not yet. Not completely. Many of us traditionalists who point to our Christian roots as the very foundation which gave rise to this government 'of, by, and for the People,' as well as has been chiefly responsible for sustaining it, often recur to scriptures such as Psalms 11:3, “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?”, in our various warnings that we need to get back to those traditional roots in order to 'secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.' The implication being, of course, that the foundations themselves, once destroyed, leave us with a fragmented or a non-existent means of putting humpty dumpty back together again.
So, is our nation's foundation still left intact? In other words, do we still have in place a solid enough foundation upon which to rebuild those parts of the American edifice which we've witnessed (and actually contributed to in many cases) deteriorate over time, but at a very accelerated pace over the last couple of decades? I'm thinking here in terms of the absolute moral degradation that has seemingly overtaken us during that span of time.
To me the question is a vitally important one, because either way we answer it within ourselves, ultimately will determine within us, and without us, what measures we take, or don't take, to ameliorate the impending crisis. And seriously, folks, I don't care what it is we're talking about, whether it's immigration reform, conducting a war against islamic jihadists the world over, restraining (or not) such things as promiscuous and immoral sexually devious lifestyles, putting restraints on certain tendencies to be ungovernable, to be anarchist; or coming to grips nationally with the immorality of Abortion, or whatever, our Christian tradition always (Always!) applies in an extremely 'foundational' way.
Our founding fathers and mothers understood this concept very well. And they passed on to their children and grandchildren these fundamentally reducible principles of 'Christian Self-Government.' Not only do we see it in their writings leading up to the revolution where this example may be given as a prime one of a collective determination on their parts,:Whereas it has pleased the righteous Sovereign of the Universe, in just indignation against the sins of a People long blessed with inestimable privileges, civil and religious, to suffer the plots of wicked men on both sides of the Atlantic...
-A Proclamation of the Provincial Congress of Massachusetts, April 15, 1775
But we see it as well in their progeny such as this exemplary example shows:I have been blamed by men of science, both in this country and in England, for quoting the Bible in confirmation of the doctrines of physical geography. The Bible, they say, was not written for scientific purposes, and is therefore of no authority in matters of science. I beg pardon! The Bible is authority for everything it touches...The Bible is true and science is true, and therefore each, if truly read, but proves the truth of the other...
-Matthew Fontaine Maury
Many other examples of the same line of thinking may be had by even a cursory investigation into our unique history as a distinct nation. But the point is this, that which makes us, and always has made us a distinctive people when compared against other peoples of the world is our history of being unwilling to allow extra-biblical, extra-traditional doctrines to creep into our thinking. Our founders understood that to do so would eventually pave the way for extra-constitutional, anti-traditionalist American values to corrupt our system, our laws, our institutions, our very culture. And so it is that we bear witness to today.
So what is the answer? How do we get this nation back on track? Truly I believe that the only answer, when you get down to where the rubber meets the road, is that we need to rediscover our Christian roots, and to apply those uniquely Christian principles of government that this nation was founded upon. Some of course will scoff at this notion, but if I know anything at all to be a 'truth,' it is that if there is a God (and God exists, don't kid yourselves), then He has revealed certain things to his moral creatures (mankind), in 'general' and 'special' kinds of revelation. The Bible being of that latter kind of revelation, reason would teach us that, as Maury relates, whatever it touches, it is authority for. And if it touches on political science, it is authority for that as well.
Truly we are at fault my friends, because with all of our scientific 'advances,' and those things which we've discovered, not invented, having made our lives so easy, we have forgotten to whom to give the glory.
Blessed be the name of the Lord!
-DW
I watched the coverage from the time the event was just beginning in the auditorium. Of course there was an atmosphere of excitement in the building, there were a lot of motivated folks there to support their predetermined preferences.
My preference is of course Tom Tancredo. His message was very clear – stop immigration; preserve our heritage! Of course this is what appeals to me most about Tancredo, that he makes the linkage between our policy of open borders/easy citizenism, and the alarming rate at which we are losing our sense of who we are. And he does so without apology, as well he should in my opinion...
The coverage itself was left uncorrupted by a bunch of pundits giving their assessments of the individual candidates' messages. This I found to be extremely appealing because I'd really prefer to draw my own conclusions on each based on their individual messages, how well they delivered them, and so on and so forth.
Not that I haven't already determined who I like the best among the candidates, but there's something to be learned about them in the way that they deliver their messages. In the case of my preference (Tancredo), I thought he was less effective than he could have been with respect to the wider audience (those who decided to watch it with me on CSPAN) due to the fact that he kept stumbling over his words in what appeared to be a rush to get through his speech. Had Tancredo slowed down a bit in his delivery of the speech, I think it probably would have resonated more with the viewership, and/or, those who might watch the coverage at a later date. As far as his 4th place showing goes, I have a hard time believing he would have changed any votes with his delivery of the speech, irregardless of how good or bad it was.
As much as I would like for substance to rule the day over style, though; to govern one's own approach to the overall message offered of the individual candidates, I'm just not sure that people in general can separate style from substance. And I think this was the weakness in Tom's speech.
As far as Ron Paul goes, I understand that his wife had been hospitalized the day prior to the event, and that due to this fact he was rather exhausted. He did look a little tired, but as I've said before, I don't care for the libertarian underpinnings of his message. Were I capable of taking the messages in his speech at face value, I would say that Paul has a lot to offer. But since it's not possible for me to lay aside his other speeches and writings, and the underlying libertarian message that is always present therein, I'd have to say that Paul's speech appealed to me very little.
These are just a few of my thoughts as to what I witnessed during the coverage of the event which was strictly limited to that which was held in the auditorium. Any additional thoughts from those of you who watched the event with me?...
-DW
John Savage mentioned this yesterday in a short entry on the subject at his blog. But I'll reiterate here that Tancredo's official blog is reporting that of a sample of 222 likely republican participants in today's Iowa Straw Poll, Tancredo comes in second with 16% of the vote behind Romney who carries, among this sample, 33% of the vote.
It'll be interesting to see how this all plays itself out as the day progresses, but if I were an Iowa Republican, I'd be making my way to Ames right now to cast my vote in favor of the 'single issue candidate,' Tom Tancredo.
BTW, in case y'all haven't noticed, we put up a link a few days ago to Tancredo's website, as well as that of Duncan Hunter in the right sidebar.
-DW
I've mentioned this site to y'all before, but I'll mention it again because it contains some good information on the respective presidential contenders. Below is a sample of Tancredo's answers to the questions posed to candidates at the 2007 Republican debate at St. Anselms College, all of which I've copied and pasted from the link provided...
On Immigration Reform:
Q: You opposed the immigration reform compromise calling it "the worst piece of legislation to come down the pike in a long time." What are the consequences for the country?
A: They are incredible and they are disastrous. I have consistently tried to impress upon the American public the seriousness of this issue. We're not just talking about the number of jobs that we may be losing, or the number of kids that are in our schools and impacting our school system, or the number of people that are abusing our hospital system and taking advantage of the welfare system in this country--we're not just talking about that. We're talking about something that goes to the very heart of this nation-- whether or not we will actually survive as a nation. And here's what I mean by that. What we're doing here in this immigration battle is testing our willingness to actually hold together as a nation or split apart into a lot of Balkanized pieces. (emphasis mine)
On Non-Interventionism:
Q: [to Paul]: Should the 9/11 attacks have changed our non-interventionist policies?
PAUL: No. [Abandoning our tradition of] non-intervention was a major contributing factor. They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years.
TANCREDO: Whether Israel existed or didn't, whether or not we were in the Iraq war or not, they would be trying to kill us because it's a dictate of their religion (emphasis mine), at least a part of it, and we have to defend ourselves.
On the Survival of Western Civilization:
Q: Let's say terrorists mounted 3 successful suicide attacks in the US, and a 4th attack was averted and the terrorists captured. How aggressively would you interrogate those being held?
A: We're talking about it in such a theoretical fashion. You say that nuclear devices have gone off in the US, more are planned, and we're wondering about whether waterboarding would be a bad thing to do? I'm looking for "Jack Bauer" at that time, let me tell you [referring to the counterrorism agent in TV's "24", who uses any methods needed to achieve desired results]. We are the last best hope of Western civilization. And so all of the theories that go behind our activities subsequent to these nuclear attacks going off in the US, they go out the window because when we go under, Western civilization goes under. As president you should make sure 1) it doesn't happen, but 2), you better respond in a way that makes them fearful of you because otherwise you guarantee something like this will happen. (emphasis mine)
On Abortion:
Q: Would the day that Roe v. Wade is repealed be a good day for America?
ROMNEY: Absolutely.
BROWNBACK: It would be a glorious day of human liberty and freedom.
GILMORE: Yes, it was wrongly decided.
HUCKABEE: Most certainly.
HUNTER: Yes.
THOMPSON: Yes.
McCAIN: A repeal.
GIULIANI: It would be OK to repeal.
TANCREDO: After 40 million dead because we have aborted them in this country, that would be the greatest day in this country's history when that, in fact, is overturned. (emphasis mine)
There's more information there on Tancredo, as well as the other candidates on their respective pages, so go check it out.
One final note, according to the graph depicting Tancredo's placement at the bottom of his page, which may be accessed simply by scrolling to the bottom of his page, Mr. Tancredo and I fall very close to one another on this chart. Having taken the quiz several times now, I find it to be pretty accurate as to my placement given that I consistently fall within the same block on the chart just to the right of Tancredo...when I answer the questions honestly, that is.
-DW
Here's a story that traditionalists oughta derive some measure of encouragement from “Kansans Keep Gambling out of County.” I've been highly critical of my own State for allowing these gambling Casinos to crop up all over the place. It is my position that gambling is corrupt at its roots; that it must involve corruption in order to operate, period. I've also said numerous times in the past that its just a matter of time before our own casinos get nationwide exposure for their corrupt 'gaming' practices. And it'll happen, mark my words...
But this story is, as I said, an encouraging one for traditionalists and for counties and States still holding to traditional values on this question of gambling:Sedgwick County voters showed gambling to the door Tuesday, voting against ballot measures for a resort casino and slot machines at Wichita Greyhound Park. The track reportedly will close within three months.
"The Gambling Goliath can be defeated, and Kansas citizens just proved it," said Chad Hills, analyst for gambling research and policy at Focus on the Family Action. "I hope other states and counties are paying attention — you can defeat gambling in your community!...
Here's a lesson we need to learn in my state. I'll grant that we may be in something of a different situation given that our casinos are owned and operated by native American tribes such as the Choctaws who probably operate the most casinos in this State. Other tribes are catching on quickly though, getting into the 'gaming' business themselves.
In the State of Oklahoma it is illegal to gamble, but the tribes get around this law by asserting their 'independent nationhood.' This is a question that we need to take up in this country on whether or not tribal entities may be considered national sovereignties within a sovereign nation. There is a conflict of interests in the policy that needs to be addressed, and personally I'm totally opposed to any form of 'dual citizenship.' Either you're a citizen of this country exclusive to all others, or you're not. No-one is forcing you to become a citizen, nor is anyone forcing you to renounce it. But this policy of dual citizenship is just plain hogwash!, and there needs to be a stop put to it.
But once again there's a great deal of encouragement we oughta take from the example laid down in the county of Sedgwick in my State's northern neighboring State of Kansas. I'm greatly encouraged that we still have people across this nation who haven't been corrupted by the enticing lure of how much money they stand to gain at the expense of their morals. Nor are some intimidated by the tactics these folks are known to engage. Indeed, Sedgwick County, Kansas, presents us with a fine example of traditionalist folks saying NO to the corruption that they know comes right along with the establishment of 'gaming' in their area. May other traditional counties in this country follow this good example! Thank you, Sedgwick County, for standing up for your tradition!
-DW
VA has a couple of entries up this morning that are very interesting, both having to do with the immigration situation in this country and in the wider west. In VA's top post, The Prospects for the West, Part II, she opens the entry with the most basic question that any conservative, any 'traditionalist,' any American oughta be asking himself/herself on a daily basis: “How many illegal aliens are in our country?” It's a great question, and one that we need to somehow, some way, get a more accurate 'guesstimate' of in the very near future...
VA goes on to elaborate on why the question is such an important one to Americans, and why we need to get a handle on it quick, fast, and in a hurry:We hear the figure '12 million' bandied about a lot, but there is no solid basis for believing that figure to be accurate; it is repeated although no one can cite a source for it, or provide evidence to back it up.
But in discussing the issue of the future of the West, and whether the United States or Europe is in greater demographic danger, it would be helpful to have a real idea of how many illegals are here now, and how many are entering over the course of a year.
I have searched for authoritative information, but found little that is clear and straightforward. We should also keep in mind that NO ONE KNOWS how many illegals are here, or how many come in each day or each year. It's all speculation and guesswork.
The federal government and our politicians seem to like that implausibly low figure of 12 million, but it's in their interests to keep the figure modest; if they confessed that they have no idea how many illegals are here, or if they gave an inkling of the suspected numbers, there would likely be an uproar, especially now that so many Americans have been mobilized against amnesty for those unknown millions of trespassing illegals.
So we are probably safe in assuming the 12 million figure is lowballed.
I agree. Some say 12 million is the most reliable figure, or they at least imply that is the most reliable estimate available by their constantly citing it. I've heard some estimates ranging from 12 to 20 million, others from 12 to 30 million. The only figure that it seems everyone can agree on is the 12 million figure as a low end estimate. I think the 30 million 'high end' estimate by some to be suspect too, and think that it may well be itself a 'lowballed' figure. But how can we know for sure? Better yet, can we know for sure? Can we at least get this number of illegal aliens in this country narrowed down to a figure that is reliable enough that we can estimate more accurately what kind of an impact they're having on our society, whether negative or positive? I think we can, I think we should, and I think the reality is that we must at some point in the very near future.
And I think the best, and probably the only way of doing it with any real hope of obtaining accurate numbers is for the States and the local governments to do the counting themselves. I mean, if we can all assume with a high degree of confidence that the numbers of votes collected at the local level, transmitted to that of the state, and those numbers to the central authority from the various States with regard to our Presidential elections is at all within the ballpark, then surely the local and the state governments may be safely entrusted with collecting and transmitting data as pertains to the numbers of illegals residing within their own borders, can't they? If the answer that comes to mind is “no,” then I can hardly see how we can place any confidence at all in the results of the presidential elections, or any other national election numbers, for that matter.
The state and local governments have themselves a vested interest in obtaining some degree of accurate numbers in this regard. And even if they have a soft spot in their hearts for immigrants, particularly of the illegal variety in this case, an accurate assessment of the numbers of them residing in their particular locals would still be advantageous to the respective governments for any number of reasons I can think of off hand.
Certainly there would be some 'cooking of the books' going on in certain locations, but I'll reiterate, this reality doesn't cause us to throw out our whole elections process even though we know without a doubt that we have pets voting in increasing numbers in our elections, as well as dead people and the whole works.
And seriously, folks, as VA has said before, it isn't like these immigrants are hiding from anyone. No; they are fearlessly traipsing about all over this great land of ours. And if they're going to walk around in the open air with no evident fear of their being shipped back to their country of origin anytime soon, then there's no time like the present for us to start counting them up. Irregardless of what the figure ultimately ends up being, we need to know what it is within a reasonable degree of accuracy. We also need a reliable way of estimating how many are continuing to come in illegally on an annual basis.
Here's something for our illustrious Congress to start to work on - put together an immigration bill, “in pursuance thereof,” that has the state and local governments complying with a 'uniform' census project intended to get an accurate estimate of how many illegal immigrants actually reside in these United States at the moment it is taken, with an additional provision stipulating this be done on at least a 'semi-regular' basis so that we'll also have some reliable indication of how many are coming in yearly. Seems to me like a pretty good plan, how about you?...
-DW
Just a quick (yet significant) entry to congratulate our very own Miss Becca for having made another advancement in the world of gymnastics. Miss Becca is my ten year old daughter who somehow talked me into letting her take on another activity (tumbling classes) some time back. She's quite an athletic little girl, and quite persuasive too (y'all know what I mean dads).
My brothers over at the AFB have been kept up to date with Miss Becca's rapid gymnastics advancements over the last year or so. What they don't know about is that due to my good friend's lengthy hospitalization (about four months), and the necessity of our seeing to his care during this time, we made the decision to temporarily suspend Miss Becca's gymnastics pursuits for the higher purpose. We didn't know, of course, that our friends' serious illness and hospital stay was going to last so long, but we finally determined to suspend Miss Becca's gymnastics puruits indefinately, until all was resolved with our friend.
I can happily report that our friend is indeed out of the hospital and doing much better now. Once he was finally released and everything looked like it was going to be ok, my wife and I started to plan for when we'd enroll Miss Becca back in gymnastics classes. It was decided between us that the fall session would be the date to shoot for. And it just so happens that the fall session is now beginning.
Also, we've been looking for a closer gymnastics academy than the one she's been attending, given that that one is 90 miles away. We found one closer to home that, though it hasn't the reputation throughout the USAG gymnastics world that the other one does, nonetheless has a fine reputation in this State for producing very good gymnasts. So we decided to give it a try.
Tonight was Miss Becca's tryout at the new place, and I'm happy to inform you that she did exceptionally well, despite about a six month layoff, and was acutally advanced to the next level of competitive gymnastics.
Nice show, Becca! USAG, here we come!
-DW
Below is a letter I received in the mail from my state Representative yesterday. In the letter you'll note how 'proud' my representative is of his social 'achievements' during his tenure in office. But as he says, there's a lot more work to be done. So without further ado...
Dear District 17 Friend:
I hope this letter finds you well. As you may know, our state Legislature faces many tough decisions as we weigh priorities on a daily basis. As your State Representative, I am proud to represent you and work for a better Oklahoma. Our annual Legislative session ended in May, and I am now back in the District listening to your concerns for our State.
While in Oklahoma City this session, I was able to help negotiate and pass:
I also helped to defeat legislation that would have given tax exemptions to oil companies. Those proposed exemptions would have resulted in a deficit in funding for the county government and local school districts and an increase in property taxes.
While I am proud of our many successes achieved during the past legislative session, I know my work is not finished. There are several initiatives I plan to address next year. As your State Representative, I will continue to fight for:
It is an honor and a privilege to serve you in the House of Representatives. I will continue to put aside partisan politics to do what is right for all Oklahomans as I work to find solutions to everyday concerns. Even though I am back at home in the District until the Legislature reconvenes in February, you can still contact me through my Capitol office by calling the toll free number...
Sincerely,...
Well, I certainly intend to give his office a call. I should like to know why there's no mention of the accomplishments of the body of which he is a member regarding the immigration situation as it now stands in my State. This is one of my chiefest concerns, nay, it is my chiefest concern. And though the Legislature has dealt with the situation legislatively, one of my concerns is that there's a battle about to ensue in the courts over this legislation. It seems to me that the immigration situation in this State is and should be priority numero uno for our representatives in the State Legislature, and until this State successfully and without question ameliorates this crisis. Our State's courts are likely to be clogged with suits filed on behalf of immigrants, legal and illegal, in this State, leaving Oklahoma citizens seeking justice out in the cold. Beyond that, every point that my representative makes about what his priorities are and have been in that body have something to do with the immigration situation as it now stands in the State of Oklahoma.
So, I ask you again, Sir, how is it that you're working to solve that problem at the root of these other things you're so proud of achieving? If you're not dealing with that crisis first and foremost, then you're not representing my interests, nor the interests of Oklahomans.
-DW
John Savage has an interesting couple of connected posts over at Brave New World Watch that deal with this question. In the original entry entitled Have We Always Had Lindsay Lohans? John cites a marxist author, Dwight Macdonald, whose writings he used to read and have an affinity for. I can't make heads or tails out of what Mr. Macdonald is saying, to be candid, but that's beside the point.
John's post, having been inspired by VA's post on the same subject, which is from an opposing view which I find myself more in agreement with, seems to equate VA's position (and my position via my agreement with hers) with that of Mr. Macdonald's on some level. If I'm misinterpreting him, I trust he'll set me straight...
John goes on to explain in his sentence following the excerpted quote that writings like Mr. Macdonald's, which stimulated some of his youthful exuberance about the superiority of 'intellectualism' caused him to speak in similarly elitist styles of 'proper' marxist prose during his more formidable years, but that now having lost much of that passion, he regards with a great deal of skepticism the charge often leveled from traditionalist circles that today's America is uniquely 'dumbed down.' John's position seems to be that the accusation itself emanates more from a liberal perspective on the subject than from a traditionalist one. But is this true?
John seems to believe that the founding generation was simply an exception to the rule that Americans have otherwise lived and conducted themselves by regarding their approach to 'education,' which to him is one of a tradition of anti-intellectualism, which he dates back to the election of the non-intellectual President, Andrew Jackson, following what some of us would term 'Western Expansion and Deterioration.' John and I would agree that the founding generation was an exceptional one educationally speaking, but in what way?
On the point that the founding generation was an exception to the rule as per its emphasis on education, I would disagree simply on the basis that the generations preceding the founding generation seem to have placed a great deal of emphasis on providing their youth with a quality education, “...dreading to leave an illiterate ministry to the churches.” I quote here from “New England's First Fruits,” c. 1643, so it would appear, in light of the whole document, that unless John believes the founding generation to have extended to the establishment of the first colonies in America, his thought that that generation was an exception, at least to that point, is misplaced. I would further disagree on the basis that it simply seems logical to me that the deterioration in the quality of education in America thereafter, given that John acknowledges at least a peak in education level during the founding generation, must have occurred at a slow and something of a steady rate; probably at a rate that was not that noticeable, or that was not that alarmingly noticeable to most except academics of the time(s). This would imply to me that Americans, rather than having always had a 'contempt for learning' as John asserts, rather developed a contempt for it over time.
John seems to think that Americans have always rejected intellectualism; that this is one of the essences of American 'traditionalism,' and that today's traditionalists, to be true to their 'traditionalism,' would also tend to reject the idea of 'intellectualism.' This is where I might agree with John, though perhaps for different reasons than he. I've been critical of 'intellectualism' on numerous occasions here and elsewhere. And here again I think we might need to properly define our terms.
My view of modern intellectualism (and to be fair to John, he doesn't use the term with the suffix attached) is consistent with John's view, I think, that it is an 'elitist' idea at its core. In this sense I reject intellectualism, and I've always considered that to be consistent with my 'traditionalism.' 'Intellectuals,' particularly the self-proclaimed types, tend to see themselves as possessing a higher order of knowledge that puts them in the unique position of always knowing the better way. In a very real sense these folks tend to think of themselves as being almost 'all-knowing.' I once read it expressed by one of these self proclaimed types as “knowledge is power; anything else isn't.” And though the author of that quote feigned a belief that the 'lower classes' had big enough brains to become intellectuals themselves, this was really not consistent with his true view of the subject, which he simply could not help but make known in his other writings. His way was the better way because his intellect was superior, and until everyone else's intellect had been raised to his level, he and his type were in a unique position to rule over the lower classes.
But to get back to this idea that American traditionalism and intellect just don't, and never have mixed well, I often lament that the level of education of the average person is far inferior today than it was many years ago. Personally I think that children have a higher capacity for learning than our educational institutions lend themselves to. I believe that the main reason for this is a 'non-traditionalist' philosophy and methodology of education in this country, and that can be reduced to the undue influence of government on education in America. So, while I would agree with John that the quality of education in America has been low for a long time by a certain standard, I would disagree that genuine traditionalism endorses and encourages this on the grounds that a different standard was once applied as regards education, and the kind of 'literacy' it was once supposed to produce.
My position on the subject is consistent with that of “America's Schoolmaster,” Noah Webster, who defined in his 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language, the term “education” this way:
EDUCATION: Education comprehends all that series of instruction and discipline which is intended to enlighten the understanding, correct the temper, and form the manners and habits of youth, and fit them for usefulness in their future stations...
Mr. Webster goes on to explain that:
To give children a good education in manners, arts and sciences, is important; to give them a religious education is indispensable; and an immense responsibility rests on parents and guardians who neglect these duties.
To me this is the true 'traditionalist' view of education, as well as the measure of 'literacy' and of intellect, and one that developed over the years from 1620 to 1776. But I think it very interesting that 'traditionalists' disagree as to what constitutes 'traditionalism,' on this question as well as others. I should like to hear some of your thoughts on what you consider to be 'traditionalism,' and why. It is interesting that the term "intellectualism" was not an entry in Webster's 1828, but the term "intellectualist" is, and the definition Webster offers us is itself intriguing in light of this conversation. You may go to the online version of this dictionary at the link provided for it in the right sidebar of this blog.
-DW
